Action: Advise US Senators and other appropriate advocates to request that The Legislature and/or President Trump by executive order to compel federal agencies to respect Texas legislation on Right To Carry. Not only are federal agencies posted but the US Army Corps of Engineers has illegally posted Texas PC Criminal Trespass signage on Parks and public paths. Senators Cruz and Cornyn and their contact information are easy to find on line.
Federal Agencies and Texas Right to Carry.
- Thread starter mec
- Start date
- Status
ClickClickD'oh
Member
I'm missing something here... do you think it's legal to carry on Corps of Engineers land? Because it's not. And that has nothing to do with Texas law.
edwardware
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 4,422
I think that's mec's point. The Corp is part of the executive branch. . . the president can dictate their policy on such issues within the bounds of federal law.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
It's not Corps of Engineers policy that makes carrying a firearm on Corps land illegal, it's federal law. Congress would need to act to change the law.
Furthermore, OP just sounds like a civics class is needed. Federal Agencies can post 30.06 signs all they want. Corps of Engineers can post all they want. Federal agencies don't have to "respect Texas legislation on Right To Carry" while on federal land, nor should they. I hope I don't have to explain why laws passed by the Texas Legislature can't limit the Federal Government. Governments under the purview of the State of Texas are generally prohibited from posting 30.06 signs in non prohibited places. Federal Government entities can post 30.06 signs all day long. So yes, 30.06 signs posted by CoE on CoE land are 100% legal and enforceable. You can be rung for a state offense and a federal offense.
The more you know.
There was a bill about this last year. It didn't make it. Perhaps pursuing that path would be better than trying a dead end with an executive order.
"Congress would need to act to change the law." Did I Not Mention That Alternative? I see that I was ambiguous
Obama, in his first term declared that State laws regarding firearms would be followed in the National Parks. Therefore, carry under the Texas law is Legal in Big Bend and other National (federally owned ) Parks. Further, the Senate and Congress can pass legislation changing standing federal law. With the Senate and House as well as the President at least temporarily flying the same flag and Internet Experts to the contrary notwithstanding, It might be beneficial to suggest such changes legislative or executive, to those bodies. Texas 30:06.com or TSRA might be a more appropriate avenue of activism and I shouldn't have even mentioned it here.
Posting a Federal Park under Texas Criminal Trespass Statutes does not create a violation of STATE law and is rude at the very least. Of course, the fed can enforce standing federal law on the matter and being found in violation could land a person in federal prison or on a government enemies list without due process.
Obama, in his first term declared that State laws regarding firearms would be followed in the National Parks. Therefore, carry under the Texas law is Legal in Big Bend and other National (federally owned ) Parks. Further, the Senate and Congress can pass legislation changing standing federal law. With the Senate and House as well as the President at least temporarily flying the same flag and Internet Experts to the contrary notwithstanding, It might be beneficial to suggest such changes legislative or executive, to those bodies. Texas 30:06.com or TSRA might be a more appropriate avenue of activism and I shouldn't have even mentioned it here.
Posting a Federal Park under Texas Criminal Trespass Statutes does not create a violation of STATE law and is rude at the very least. Of course, the fed can enforce standing federal law on the matter and being found in violation could land a person in federal prison or on a government enemies list without due process.
edwardware
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 4,422
I was unaware of that, and I'm surprised it's a matter of law. If it's a matter of law (not regulation), then the legislature would need to act.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Cannibul
Member
The funny thing about COE controlled stuff is I lived most of my life in the Columbia/Snake river watershed and almost all the lakes are COE property. People hunt waterfowl on the lakes, deer on the land, people carry while fishing and it's never been a problem and never really mentioned that it's illegal to do so.
You Are 100! Percent! Correct!. Congress passed the law. Obama signed it. Obama got a lot of credit because everybody was surprised that he would sign such a thing and that must be where my confusion started.
The issue of Corp land emerged here a few months ago When a hike and bike trail that had been open for many years, suddenly acquired both 30:06 and 07 signs. I have been told that the signs are now posted at other lakes at in the general area but distant from this one. There have bee no published notice of the posting or mention of incidences that might have prompted it. The trail was deemed under the management of the local park department and police department and the corp was invisible. A portion of the associated lake is deemed a hunting area where archery equipment and shotguns are permitted. I advised the US Senator of this hoping that he might support either and executive order or LEGISLATION of what seems a capricious action.
I apologize for bothering you about this matter.
vito
Member
BTW, while carrying concealed is legal in national parks, it does not apply within the Federally operated buildings within those parts. So if you plan on physically entering the Visitor Center in whatever national park you are visiting, leave your concealed firearm secured in your vehicle.
Another unrelated quick in the law is that having a dog or other pet with you on the grounds in most national parks is prohibited, but in national forests you are free to bring your pet with you. I found that out in Sequoia National Park where I was told I could not walk my dog with me on the marked trails, but in adjacent Sequoia National Forest it was perfectly OK to do so.
Another unrelated quick in the law is that having a dog or other pet with you on the grounds in most national parks is prohibited, but in national forests you are free to bring your pet with you. I found that out in Sequoia National Park where I was told I could not walk my dog with me on the marked trails, but in adjacent Sequoia National Forest it was perfectly OK to do so.
Not a "quick" or even a "quirk".
National Parks are administered by the Parks Service. National Forests are administered by the Forest Service. They are completely different agencies of the Federal Government and they have completely different missions and thus operate under different statutes and different regulations. That means that what you can do in a National Park is NOT the same thing that you can do in a National Forest.
No.
They are property of the Federal government. They are administered by the Corps of Engineers. The distinction may appear to be subtle, but is quite real as it determines what set of regulations are applied to the property. COE land is not a National Park. It is not Forest Service land; it is governed by the COE predominately for water supply and flood control.
Quite right. And it was an amendment to a bill that Obama really, REALLY wanted passed, so he had to sign off on it or lose his bill.
GooseGestapo
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,145
Expand the link in post #9.
Exceptions to firearms Carry/use.
I routinely shoot on a state controlled range on Corp property. I also hunt predominantly on Corp owned property, both Corp regulated, and that leased/controlled as State Management areas.
Read the Law!!!
CFR IS law.
Exceptions to firearms Carry/use.
I routinely shoot on a state controlled range on Corp property. I also hunt predominantly on Corp owned property, both Corp regulated, and that leased/controlled as State Management areas.
Read the Law!!!
CFR IS law.
No.
Regulations are an agency's interpretation of the law. Courts will generally defer to an agency's interpretation of the law unless there is a reason not to. Occasionally, Congress will enact a statute that instructs the agency to issue regulations. Such "legislative regulations" are generally treated by the courts as having the force of law since they are promulgated under a grant of authority from Congress, but they remain the agency's interpretation of the statute even if their interpretation is more authoritative than regulations promulgated without Congressional prompting.
That's incorrect insofar that the regs include the law and the rules and enforcement of the law. Interps are separate.
I disagree. The statute is the statute. The regulations are the regulations. They are separate things and not overlapping sets. The regulations will, of necessity, reflect and cite to the statute, but they do not incorporate the statute. As noted, except in the case of so-called "legislative regulations", regulations published by an agency are called "interpetative regulations" for a reason; because they are the agency's interpretation of and explanation of how the law should be interpreted and how the agency will administer it.
Here is a refreshingly accurate article on guns on corps property. Somebody is apparently interested enough to step up
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rps-of-engineers-land/?utm_term=.41319bba8053
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rps-of-engineers-land/?utm_term=.41319bba8053
hso wins this one.
A regulation of an administrative agency adopted pursuant to authority set out in a statute and in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (specifically 5 USC 553) has the force of law. Such regulations are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,560
IME when lawyers talk about a regulation we mean a regulation supported by statutory authority and adopted through formal rulemaking. These may be challenged on various grounds, including that they are outside the scope of the authority delegated in the statute
Regulatory agencies also have policies, or issue guidance, or publish interpretive bulletins. These sorts of things help tell people how the agency is interpreting and applying the law. These may be challenged on various grounds, including that they don't properly apply applicable law.
Regulatory agencies basically have two types of functions: quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial. In their quasi-legislative role, they adopt regulations which have the force of law and have broad applicability. Agencies adopt regulations as I've described.
Regulatory agencies also perform quasi-judicial functions. These functions include such things as issuing licenses, authorizing or declining to authorize acts of entities licensed by them or subject to their jurisdiction, and adjudicating charges of misconduct by persons or entities subject their jurisdiction. Examples of quasi-judicial regulatory agency action include: a medical board revoking a physician's license for a breach of professional obligations; a department of insurance issuing a company a license to operate an HMO; a department of consumer affairs licensing real estate brokers fining a real estate broker for an unlawful failure to properly maintain a trust account; or the ATF rejecting an application for an FFL.
These are quasi-judicial because they involve determining the facts of a particular matter, identifying and interpreting the applicable law and making a decision by applying the law to the facts. In most cases, an adverse quasi-judicial act of a regulatory agency is subject to multiple levels of appeal. For example, the physician unhappy about losing his license to practice medicine usually first has a right to an administrative hearing conducted by the agency. If he's still unhappy, he can seek judicial review.
Regulations are adopted by regulatory agencies as part of their quasi-legislative function. Policies, guidance, or interpretive bulletins generally relate to a regulatory agency's quasi-judicial function.
Torian
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 1,016
This thread is a pretty interesting read. I've always been curious just how much power POTUS has to issue "guidance" to federal agencies with respect to 2nd amendment laws already on the books. Perhaps if no laws exist addressing the subject of the regulation, he has significant leeway, but if the law is clear on the subject, he has far less freedom of maneuver?
- Status
